In a sense, there were two general surrenders. The first was in 1841, and the second in 1845. Further more circumscribed surrenders (e.g., to the Burtch Tract) occurred between 1848 and 1853. However, after the submission of Lord Elgin's report in 1850, which was included in the Indian Registry System, there were only minor adjustments.
The Six Nations Land and Resources provide the facts and allegations pertaining to Claim 5 here. The map that is included can be found here.
Once again, the research did not go far enough. If one only sifts through the documents to 1844 and comes to a grinding halt here, well the Chiefs at this date were still requesting that they keep lands which they surrendered one year later or at least by 1848. Those years between 1845 and 1848 are absolutely key. "Avoiding" them, or omitting them, will create a distorted and false picture of the sum total of the lands which were surrendered and entered into Lord Elgins Report.
The discussion and data presented in the previous post applies directly to Claim 5. Claims 16 and 5 could and be combined based on my reading of the evidence. One again, as with Claim 16, there is no basis in fact to support the validity of Claim 5. It was surrendered in 1845 and registered in the Indian Registry System in 1850. The Chiefs did not for example come back in 1856 and report that the surrender of 1845 was in error, and that they wanted justice - it did not happen because the surrender was valid. Whatever 21 year leases there may or may not have been in relation to this property became a moot point in 1845 - the land was surrendered for sale by the Crown - said monies to be added to the Six Nations annuity fund. I am not in a position to speak to potential irregularities in the monies distributed to this fund - it is an area well beyond my research experience. There may or may not be injustices here - I simply don't know.
Please see my previous posting here, as it applies directly to Claim 5.
DeYo.
Saturday 21 December 2013
Six Nations Land Claim Number 16: Oneida Township
The map that accompanies Claim 16, Oneida Township based on the assertions of the Six Nations Land and Resources Department is found on their website here. It is a shame that I cannot put this document directly on my blog, but the webdesigners have found every possible way to exclude that option. This violates my view on "open access". If one has nothing to hide, and it is a government or related public document, it should be readily available for display. But I digress. Basically Six Nations are claiming not only the part of Oneida Township which is presently part of the Six Nations Reserve, but the Township in its entirety.
There is a basic observation to be made here, and which applies to other claims in equal measure. If one takes matters out of context, it is possible to "prove" just about anything. In fact during the period between 1841 with the General Surrender, and 1853 when the move of most of the Six Nations members to the consolidated Reserve had taken place and the squatters had by in large removed and were compensated, there were many occasions when the Chiefs in Council changed their mind. If one wishes to only focus on their first perspective, then it would be easy to make a case of there still be vast tracts of unceeded land. However, all of the documents between 1841 and at least 1848 must be read in order to determine why the Ontario land Registry system includes the lands being claimed over 150 years after the fact by the Six Nations.
In this specific instance, it is true that as late as 28 March 1844, there are documents stating that the lands between Burtch's Landing and "Cayuga" (which would thus include the Township of Oneida) were to be included in lands reserved for the Six Nations. This turned out to be an error, perpetuated by Samuel P. Jarvis, which was rather obvious since there were huge blocks of land (e.g., Cook Block, Nelles Block, Dennis Block, McKenzie Block, Anderson Block, etc.) already in the hands of White men, and approved by the Chiefs in Council in a general review of lands along the Grand River as early as 1809. So Jarvis tripped up, but the error was caught and the correct description approved by the Chiefs in Council was registered.
In 1845 the matter was cleared up to everyones satisfaction. The Indian Superintendent here was David Thorburn. Here follows excepts from the relevant Council Minutes:
In this specific instance, it is true that as late as 28 March 1844, there are documents stating that the lands between Burtch's Landing and "Cayuga" (which would thus include the Township of Oneida) were to be included in lands reserved for the Six Nations. This turned out to be an error, perpetuated by Samuel P. Jarvis, which was rather obvious since there were huge blocks of land (e.g., Cook Block, Nelles Block, Dennis Block, McKenzie Block, Anderson Block, etc.) already in the hands of White men, and approved by the Chiefs in Council in a general review of lands along the Grand River as early as 1809. So Jarvis tripped up, but the error was caught and the correct description approved by the Chiefs in Council was registered.
In 1845 the matter was cleared up to everyones satisfaction. The Indian Superintendent here was David Thorburn. Here follows excepts from the relevant Council Minutes:
The Council met again on September 17 and 18, 1845.
Sixty-six chiefs were in attendance on September 17. The following is recorded,
... After much time spent in discussion, [illegible word] the submission it was finally resolved [illegible word or words] reserves should consist of the lands adjoining, the tier of Lots on the west side of the Plank road in the township of Oneida and the whole of. the Township of Tuscarora ..........
(David Thorburn, Minutes of Council, Council House Onondaga, September 17, 1845. LAC, RG 10 Vol. 152, pp. 87852-87854) - bold print mine.
To ensure that the somewhat imprecise language (at least from a surveyor's point of view) was put on record, the following description of the lands were recorded such that a notice could be posted to alert squatters as to what lands were affected. Here follows the notification:
The Council minutes of the 'following day, 18 September 1845, have not been located, however a public notice describing the lands reserved for the Six.Nations is consistent with the intention indicated at the September 17 meeting. The public notice described the reserved lands:
Lying on the South side of the Grand River, West from the tier of Lots adjoining the Plank Road, in the Township of Oneida, including the Township of Tuscarora ........
("Notice" [prior to January 1, 1846] LAC, RG 10, Vol. 458, p. 78. The document is damaged.and the date is not discernible) - bold print mine.
At a Council meeting of 8 March 1848, David Thorburn reported that,
His Lordship in saying they might have 55,000 acres; evidently meant if such could be had in confonmity with the request of the Council, that their settlements should be entirely Indian and compact. This has been done as far as existing circumstances at the tome would permit & a compact settlement could only be given from the west side of the tier of Lots on the Plank road in Oneida stretching westward to the Line separating the townships of Tuscarora from the Burtch tract in Brantford. At that time the Burtch Tract was still an outstanding matter - as will be discussed in a later posting.
(Council Minutes dated March [9], 1848. LAC, RG 10 ,Vol. 170 , pp. 98607-98610) - bold print mine.
Finally in 1850, Lord Elgin's Proclamation seals the deal for all of the reserved Indian lands in the Haldimand Tract:
Finally in 1850, Lord Elgin's Proclamation seals the deal for all of the reserved Indian lands in the Haldimand Tract:
including the following lands in the Haldimand Tract: ... certain tract or parcel of land, situate in the Township of ONEIDA in the County of Haldimand ... comprising lots numbers one, two, three, four, five and six in the first, second, third, fourth,' fifth and sixth concessions respectively of Oneida .. and also, Riveir lots numbers one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven and twelve in the same Township.
... the whole of the Township of TUSCARORA ..
("Proclamation extending the provisions of 13 and 14 Vict. Ch. 74 to certain lands in several townships in U.C. in the occupation or enjoyment of various tribes of Indians, November 8, 1850". INAC Indian Lands Registry Registration No. 8740-292).
The above lands described as being in the Township of Oneida are those included in the present consolidated Reserve.
So again the Chiefs in Council heard the boundaries discussed and there was no dissent noted. No where are any lots along the Plank Road in Seneca mentioned, the chiefs laid no further claim to them or any lands in the Township of Seneca at any time after 1844.
The key here is understanding where "the tier of Lots adjoining the Plank Road" is situated. It can be seen on maps of Oneida Township. Although there is a survey map dating to 1845 when the Land Inspection Returns of Oneida Township were submitted, the present author did not copy this document, only the land descriptions. One example from a later date will however suffice. It is from the H.R. Page Atlas of Haldimand County of 1879:
Above is the 1879 map of Oneida Township, which, in addition to the part seen as "Indian Reserve", is claimed by Six Nations as "Claim 19". The only lands to which a legitimate claim can be made are those already included in the Reserve, west of the tier of lots behind the Plank Road seen as running in a slight diagonal from the middle of Caledonia at the top of the map, to the town of Hagersville is shown at the very bottom where two rail lines cross near the Plank Road.
Conclusion: There is no basis in fact for the claim that Six Nations never surrendered what is today the Township of Oneida. The Chiefs in Council surrendered all of the Township of Oneida, including the lots along the Plank Road, in 1845. The only section that was reserved was the part that is presently included in the consolidated Reserve.
DeYo.
An Examination of Each of the 29 Land Claims Submitted by Six Nations to Date
There are 29 land claims filed against the Federal Government of Canada, all but two within the geographical bounds of the Haldimand Tract, and reported in the website of the Land and Resources Department of the Six Nations. The said website can be accessed here.
It is the intention of the present author to examine the factual basis of each of the claims via individual postings to the present blog with the exception of those outside the Haldimand Tract, namely number 2 Innisfil Township, and number 3 East Hawkesbury Township. At this time I do not believe that I am well enough versed in either of these two claims to be in a position to either support or challenge them.
The sources I will use include the following:
1) My own forays, primarily in a 20 year period between the mid 1970s to mid 1990s, into the original records pertaining to the claims. These records and sources are primarily found at the National Library and Archives in Ottawa, and the Archives of Ontario in Toronto. Other important repositories whose collections I accessed were those at the Library of the Woodland Cultural Centre and the Brant County Library, both in Brantford; and the Haldimand County Museum and Archives in Cayuga.
2) Sally Weaver's research and ethnographic notes between 1963 and 1975 as published in the following article: Sally M. Weaver, Six Nations of the Grand River, Ontario, in William C. Sturtevant (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, Northeast, Washington D.C., Smithsonian Institute, 1978. I have also read most of the original research articles published in journals and books and referenced in this publication.
3) Joan Holmes, Reports of Joan Holmes (Filed on the City of Brantford's Injunction Motion). Report dated 19 January 2009; Supplementary Report dated 2 February 2009.
It appears that the above report was prepared for the Corporation of the City of Brantford, but has not been "officially" released. A copy of both reports has been placed online by person or persons unknown, and can be found here. The documents which Joan Holmes cites are those which the present author has also researched, and cross validates with these efforts, as well as those of Sally Weaver who employed the same cited source material. In my opinion the "Holmes Report" is spot on accurate. The credentials of the author, head of Joan Holmes & Associates Inc., a research and analysis firm which since 1983 has offered services to First Nations, both the Federal and Provincial Governments, as well as law firms, can be found here.
The Six Nations Land and Resources website indicates that it is current to 2008, although there is information about the 2009 offer made by the Federal Government to address the Welland Canal flooding claim.
The present author knew the former Six Nations researcher, Phillip Monture and has visited the forerunner to the present Lands and Resources office, recalling clearly the metal file cabinets bound with chains and padlocks. I don't recall meeting the new researcher, Lonny Bomberry. As far as I know, all of the background work as to what is found in the website was done by Phil Monture. For the record, I have always had respect for Mr. Monture and his work, although we disagree on the assessment of the evidence relating to most of the land claims.
On the page including the Six Nations Land Claim Summaries (Basis and Allegations), as seen here, there are statements with which I disagree. There is one which particularly distresses me, so it warrants at least a comment or two. It is stated, As set out in the grant of land the Crown had a duty to protect Six Nations lands for their sole use. In many cases not only did the Government fail to do so, the officials of Crown actively encouraged the settlement upon those lands. Based on my reading of all of the official correspondence, nothing could be further from the truth. Very early in the settlement of the area, in 1793 Governor Simcoe forbade the sale of lands in the Haldimand Tract to White people, and threatened to have all of them removed. It was the Six Nations who fought to leave things alone as they valued the presence of former neighbours from the Mohawk Valley who could be a valuable asset in helping the Six Nations males learn agricultural methods, and who would establish mills to grind the grain and cut the lumber for the benefit of the Six Nations. Later Government officials were tearing their hair out as more and more settlers moved on to Six Nations land, typically after paying a Six Nations member for their "improvements" and securing a deed for this property. Hence the Six Nations were setting up a situation which totally overwhelmed the ability of the Indian Department officials to act. While some Six Nations did indeed want the White settlers removed, this was hardly the case for many who were making a tidy living occupying then selling land as a commodity. So to blame the "colonialism" of government officials is to completely miss the point of what all were facing at Six Nations. The officials despaired as to what to do about the matter. It is not as if they could call in the army or send the squatters to some old prison scow moored in Lake Ontario. It was in fact the recognition by the Government officials that the Six Nations way of life would be unsustainable with the status quo that led to their recommendation that the Six Nations live together as a people, in close proximity, and free of settlements of Whites which were interspersed all along the Tract. In fact there are multiple documentary sources which show the deep concern felt by these officials to whom so much venom is cast. It is not fair, because it is not correct. See for example the collection of small diaries of David Thorburn at the Archives of Ontatio, for some of the concerns he had seeing what was happening to the Six Nations, or review the correspondence of officials at every level who saw the same problems surfacing. Probably the most accessible reference for the latter would by Charles M. Johnston, The Valley of the Six Nations: A Collection of Documents on the Indian Lands of the Grand River, Totonto, The Champlain Society, 1964.
The bottom line through all of these claims is that there is a major omission. In 1850 Lord Elgin submitted a report based on all of the negotiations registered to that time. In the case of the Six Nations, it was to be considered as a final summation which included the description (and a map) that showed all of the lands to be reserved for the Six Nations. If lands are not included in Lord Elgin's Report then one can consider that they should not be there, unless negotiated after that date. Hence this document which formed the basis of the Six Nations Reserve 40 entry in the Indian Land Registry System must be considered the standard by which all else is assessed. As I have said many times, there was no formal back tracking by the Chiefs. What they decided in Council was to remain as a reflection of their wishes - that is until 150 or more years later some decided to second guess all of the documentation and the express wishes of the Six Nations Chiefs in Council. Hence, here is the description of the true boundaries of the Six Nations Reserve:
... Township of Onondaga ... east of Fairchild's Creek, known as River Lots numbers forty-five, forty-six, forty-seven, forty-eight, forty-nine, fifty, fifty-one, fifty two, fifty-three, fifty-four, fiftyfive, fifty-six, fifty-seven, fifty-eight, fifty-nine, sixty and sixty-one in the third Concession, the same township.
While I will attempt to explore the evidence relating to each of the land claims within the Haldimand Tract, this will not be done in the numbering sequence used by the Lands and Resources Department. In my opinion, there are some that require immediate attention due to the social, political and other problems they have created.
I will begin with 16. Oneida Township then tackle the related number 5. Hamilton-Port Dover Plank Road, Seneca & Oneida Townships.
DeYo.
It is the intention of the present author to examine the factual basis of each of the claims via individual postings to the present blog with the exception of those outside the Haldimand Tract, namely number 2 Innisfil Township, and number 3 East Hawkesbury Township. At this time I do not believe that I am well enough versed in either of these two claims to be in a position to either support or challenge them.
The sources I will use include the following:
1) My own forays, primarily in a 20 year period between the mid 1970s to mid 1990s, into the original records pertaining to the claims. These records and sources are primarily found at the National Library and Archives in Ottawa, and the Archives of Ontario in Toronto. Other important repositories whose collections I accessed were those at the Library of the Woodland Cultural Centre and the Brant County Library, both in Brantford; and the Haldimand County Museum and Archives in Cayuga.
2) Sally Weaver's research and ethnographic notes between 1963 and 1975 as published in the following article: Sally M. Weaver, Six Nations of the Grand River, Ontario, in William C. Sturtevant (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, Northeast, Washington D.C., Smithsonian Institute, 1978. I have also read most of the original research articles published in journals and books and referenced in this publication.
3) Joan Holmes, Reports of Joan Holmes (Filed on the City of Brantford's Injunction Motion). Report dated 19 January 2009; Supplementary Report dated 2 February 2009.
It appears that the above report was prepared for the Corporation of the City of Brantford, but has not been "officially" released. A copy of both reports has been placed online by person or persons unknown, and can be found here. The documents which Joan Holmes cites are those which the present author has also researched, and cross validates with these efforts, as well as those of Sally Weaver who employed the same cited source material. In my opinion the "Holmes Report" is spot on accurate. The credentials of the author, head of Joan Holmes & Associates Inc., a research and analysis firm which since 1983 has offered services to First Nations, both the Federal and Provincial Governments, as well as law firms, can be found here.
The Six Nations Land and Resources website indicates that it is current to 2008, although there is information about the 2009 offer made by the Federal Government to address the Welland Canal flooding claim.
The present author knew the former Six Nations researcher, Phillip Monture and has visited the forerunner to the present Lands and Resources office, recalling clearly the metal file cabinets bound with chains and padlocks. I don't recall meeting the new researcher, Lonny Bomberry. As far as I know, all of the background work as to what is found in the website was done by Phil Monture. For the record, I have always had respect for Mr. Monture and his work, although we disagree on the assessment of the evidence relating to most of the land claims.
On the page including the Six Nations Land Claim Summaries (Basis and Allegations), as seen here, there are statements with which I disagree. There is one which particularly distresses me, so it warrants at least a comment or two. It is stated, As set out in the grant of land the Crown had a duty to protect Six Nations lands for their sole use. In many cases not only did the Government fail to do so, the officials of Crown actively encouraged the settlement upon those lands. Based on my reading of all of the official correspondence, nothing could be further from the truth. Very early in the settlement of the area, in 1793 Governor Simcoe forbade the sale of lands in the Haldimand Tract to White people, and threatened to have all of them removed. It was the Six Nations who fought to leave things alone as they valued the presence of former neighbours from the Mohawk Valley who could be a valuable asset in helping the Six Nations males learn agricultural methods, and who would establish mills to grind the grain and cut the lumber for the benefit of the Six Nations. Later Government officials were tearing their hair out as more and more settlers moved on to Six Nations land, typically after paying a Six Nations member for their "improvements" and securing a deed for this property. Hence the Six Nations were setting up a situation which totally overwhelmed the ability of the Indian Department officials to act. While some Six Nations did indeed want the White settlers removed, this was hardly the case for many who were making a tidy living occupying then selling land as a commodity. So to blame the "colonialism" of government officials is to completely miss the point of what all were facing at Six Nations. The officials despaired as to what to do about the matter. It is not as if they could call in the army or send the squatters to some old prison scow moored in Lake Ontario. It was in fact the recognition by the Government officials that the Six Nations way of life would be unsustainable with the status quo that led to their recommendation that the Six Nations live together as a people, in close proximity, and free of settlements of Whites which were interspersed all along the Tract. In fact there are multiple documentary sources which show the deep concern felt by these officials to whom so much venom is cast. It is not fair, because it is not correct. See for example the collection of small diaries of David Thorburn at the Archives of Ontatio, for some of the concerns he had seeing what was happening to the Six Nations, or review the correspondence of officials at every level who saw the same problems surfacing. Probably the most accessible reference for the latter would by Charles M. Johnston, The Valley of the Six Nations: A Collection of Documents on the Indian Lands of the Grand River, Totonto, The Champlain Society, 1964.
The bottom line through all of these claims is that there is a major omission. In 1850 Lord Elgin submitted a report based on all of the negotiations registered to that time. In the case of the Six Nations, it was to be considered as a final summation which included the description (and a map) that showed all of the lands to be reserved for the Six Nations. If lands are not included in Lord Elgin's Report then one can consider that they should not be there, unless negotiated after that date. Hence this document which formed the basis of the Six Nations Reserve 40 entry in the Indian Land Registry System must be considered the standard by which all else is assessed. As I have said many times, there was no formal back tracking by the Chiefs. What they decided in Council was to remain as a reflection of their wishes - that is until 150 or more years later some decided to second guess all of the documentation and the express wishes of the Six Nations Chiefs in Council. Hence, here is the description of the true boundaries of the Six Nations Reserve:
Indian lands in Upper Canada including the
following lands in the Haldimand Tract:
... certain tract or parcel of land, situate
in the Township of ONEIDA in the County of Haldimand ...
comprising lots number one, two, three, four, five and six in the
first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth
concessions respectively of Oneida .. and also, River lots numbers one, two, three, four, five,
six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven and twelve in the same Township.
... the whole of the Township of TUSCARORA ..
Also, to that certain parcel of Land
containing Two Hundred Acres more or less, adjacent to the Mohawk Church,
and known as LOT NUMBER FIVE, in the Eagle's Nest, in the Township of Brantford, in the said county of Wentworth.
... Township of Onondaga ... east of Fairchild's Creek, known as River Lots numbers forty-five, forty-six, forty-seven, forty-eight, forty-nine, fifty, fifty-one, fifty two, fifty-three, fifty-four, fiftyfive, fifty-six, fifty-seven, fifty-eight, fifty-nine, sixty and sixty-one in the third Concession, the same township.
("Proclamation extending the provisions of 13 and
14 Vict. Ch. 74 to certain lands in several townships in U.C. in the occupation
or enjoyment of various tribes of Indians”, November 8, 1850. INAC Indian Lands
Registry Registration No. 8740-292). See "Holmes Report" pp. 14-15.
While I will attempt to explore the evidence relating to each of the land claims within the Haldimand Tract, this will not be done in the numbering sequence used by the Lands and Resources Department. In my opinion, there are some that require immediate attention due to the social, political and other problems they have created.
I will begin with 16. Oneida Township then tackle the related number 5. Hamilton-Port Dover Plank Road, Seneca & Oneida Townships.
DeYo.
Thursday 19 December 2013
The Grand River: Highest Concentrations of Artificial Sweeteners in the World - Environmental Impact?
I have written before about environmental issues relating to my ancestral Grand River Valley. As a young person, I worked with the Haldimand Norfolk Organization for a Pure Environment (HOPE) to defeat the Provincial Government's intention to place a toxic waste dump in the Township of South Cayuga. I have cheered on Six Nations activists such as Ruby and Floyd Montour in their efforts to support the residents of Dundalk at the headwaters of the Grand River where the Provincial Government wished to dump tons of human sludge from waste water facilities. I have cursed the Six Nations groups who are behind the Samsung and other "wind farm" projects in the Grand River Tract. What was particularly galling was the claim that the Haudenosaunee Development Institute and other groups at Six Nations could negotiate directly with the off shore (e.g., Korean) interests since the land (for example in South Cayuga) was unceeded Six Nations land. That is a false claim, and I can easily dispell this erroneous assertion with irrefutable evidence from documents of the 1840s. I see these horrid eye sores on the horizon, slowly creeping east from Norfolk, as about as far from "green" as one can go. Just the sheer number of migratory birds that will die from the blades is unacceptable. There will never be support from myself or like minded individuals concerning these "initiatives" of the Haldimand County authorities, the Land and Resources Department at Six Nations, or others such as the HDI intent on cashing in by making hay while the sun shines. This is where I stand on the above issues.
There is a new (in the sense of recently recognized), if unlikely, potential environmental hazard impacting the Grand River Tract - artificial sweeteners. First some background. I think that many assume that the waste water treatment facilities along the Grand River are sufficient to remove anything hazardous such that those downstream can safely use (with proper filtration systems) the water of the Grand River. It is known that, for example, pharmaceuticals or their bioactive metabolites can pop out of the treatment facility virtually intact. One known to stay firm is Viagara. So depending on the number of men who use this drug in say Fergus, those in Elora will be exposed to varying levels of the drug in the River water. One can imagine the number of muskrats that must be walking or swimming around with major stiffies after consuming enough of the Viagara saturated fish from the River :-) There is a more pressing or urgent concern around medications such as vicodin or adderal and what effect they might have on humans who consume water from riverine sources. This subject could be a topic for a subsequent blog post, but the focus here is on a study published 11 December 2013 which specifically focuses on the Grand River.
The article of interest is, John Spoelstra et al,, Artificial Sweeteners in a Large Canadian River Reflect Human Consumption in the Watershed, PLOS One, Vol. 8, Issue 12, December 2013. The paper can be accessed here, and in pdf format here - all free (open access).
The following map from the above article nicely summarizes the problem:
There is a new (in the sense of recently recognized), if unlikely, potential environmental hazard impacting the Grand River Tract - artificial sweeteners. First some background. I think that many assume that the waste water treatment facilities along the Grand River are sufficient to remove anything hazardous such that those downstream can safely use (with proper filtration systems) the water of the Grand River. It is known that, for example, pharmaceuticals or their bioactive metabolites can pop out of the treatment facility virtually intact. One known to stay firm is Viagara. So depending on the number of men who use this drug in say Fergus, those in Elora will be exposed to varying levels of the drug in the River water. One can imagine the number of muskrats that must be walking or swimming around with major stiffies after consuming enough of the Viagara saturated fish from the River :-) There is a more pressing or urgent concern around medications such as vicodin or adderal and what effect they might have on humans who consume water from riverine sources. This subject could be a topic for a subsequent blog post, but the focus here is on a study published 11 December 2013 which specifically focuses on the Grand River.
The article of interest is, John Spoelstra et al,, Artificial Sweeteners in a Large Canadian River Reflect Human Consumption in the Watershed, PLOS One, Vol. 8, Issue 12, December 2013. The paper can be accessed here, and in pdf format here - all free (open access).
The following map from the above article nicely summarizes the problem:
There are clear "hotspots" shown, and these reflect the urban density of the population in the area (e.g., Waterloo, Guelph, Brantford). The source is humans who for example consume artificial sweeteners such as saccarin to avoid natural sugar in an attempt at weight loss, and dietary control of diabetes. So imagine all those packets of artificial sweeteners dumped in your Starbuck's coffee (I don't know what Tim Horton's uses for their double double). After a series of way stations in the body and enroute to the sewage disposal plant, the sweetener ends up virtually intact being ejected out of the waste water pipe from the treatment plant in say Brantford, and may be found in the tap water at Six Nations or Caledonia.
The study is fascinating for a number of reasons. One is that it allows scientists to track chemical used only by humans (last I checked, Starbucks was not serving lattes to bovine customers). The problem is likely eclipsed by far by the phosphate run off from agricultural operations in the Grand River watershed, although some substances that are used by humans may be having unknown adverse effects.
As I have said on many occasions, it is counter productive and highly detrimental to argue about claims that are without merit. Ultimately any "gains" will be offset by losses in other areas (the cooperative spirit between all those living as neighbours). In my opinion, it is these environmental issues that Six Nations and their non-Native neighbours should be addressing, working together to ensure the health of our River system, and the entire surrounding ecosystem. Surely there is common ground here.
DeYo.
Wednesday 18 December 2013
McKenzie Meadows Development Project: Update, No Surprises Here
In an earlier blog posting I provided considerable background material in relation to the McKenzie Meadows Development Project which was slated to begin at McKenzie Road, and in the later phases of development, reach Argyll Street immediately opposite the Douglas Creek Estates (Kanonhstaton) which was such a sore point for Six Nations and Caledonians back in 2006 (and continues to the present). See here for this posting. Here I predicted that the whole "deal" between the Six Nations Elected Band Council (SNEC) and Michael Corrado et al. the developer would turn sour once the Hereditary Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) and its "enforcement" wing the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) got wind of this. As par for the course, despite the fact that SNEC are the group that by Canadian law are empowered to negotiate, the HCCC stepped in and was able to influence events. Although "officially" defunct as of 1924, the HCCC have been and continue to be a power to contend with in any negotiations involving lands in the Haldimand Tract or Southwestern Ontario. They can effectively shut everything down if they or the HDI are displeased with the way things are being handled (or for any other reason).
True to form, the whole agreement whereby $1250 from each home in the development would go to fund a Six Nations language immersion school, crumbled. Here follows what is found in Turtle Island News, December 18, 2013, p. 7, Community gives thumbs down to the McKenzie Meadows project. Ultimately now both SNEC and HCCC have jointly axed the deal. The three community feedback sessions noted in my earlier posting brought forth 69 responses, and only 15 were positive - so no go. SNEC Land and Resources Director Lonny Bomberry cited that the "emotional aspect" due to the proximity to the DCE and the "land reclamation" issue was the deciding factor. In other words, having the project immediately across the road from the horrible situation of 2006 that left scars in both communities would, in the minds of some, just throw gasoline on the fire - thus it would be best to just leave things be, at least at this point. In reality, it could be little more than the vocal opposition of the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) that tipped the scales, who asserted "bad faith negotiations" with the developers. Translation here, the HDI was not approached, and they are the self appointed "recognised" authority in the Community. The developers, did not respect the Haudenosaunee Process, and due to a number of deaths in the Longhouse Community, no negotiations could take place. The finger was also pointed at SNEC for not following protocol as HDI sees things. The perception was also that by accepting this deal, Six Nations would be giving up land and treaty "rights".
As to what would happen next, Bomberry believes that this will end the possibility of the development proceeding. I don't think they can proceed reports Bomberry. While the wording of the article is a bit confusing, it seems that the opinion here is that the entire development will just grind to a halt, since Six Nations has not given their approval. It should be recalled that this "deal" was in part to offset the developer's intention to obtain an injunction to allow the work to proceed. Considering the recent rulings by judges of the Superior Court of Ontario, it is highly likely and even probable, in my opinion, that the developer will apply for an injunction and if anyone tries to interfere with his right to develop his land, they will expect to be heavily fined just as those involved in a similar action in Brantford were - and the fines in that matter have not been paid to this point.
As I have noted time and time again, if the evidence ever goes to Court, there is one and only one outcome that will emerge from a test of Six Nations claims of unceeded land beyond the present Reserve boundaries. That decision would be that there is no factual basis upon which these claims rest. Since this evidence has been available to the Courts since 2009, I am wondering when the boom will be lowered. There are going to be a lot of jaws dropping when the evidence is presented, and a ruling is made and all appeals exhausted. My question, posed elsewhere, is whether Six Nations will be forced to make reparations for the extreme damage caused by the 2006 Douglas Creek Estates land "reclamation" - the effects continue to this day, as the acrimony has never gone away.
Stay tuned, this situation is primed for a confrontation.
DeYo.
True to form, the whole agreement whereby $1250 from each home in the development would go to fund a Six Nations language immersion school, crumbled. Here follows what is found in Turtle Island News, December 18, 2013, p. 7, Community gives thumbs down to the McKenzie Meadows project. Ultimately now both SNEC and HCCC have jointly axed the deal. The three community feedback sessions noted in my earlier posting brought forth 69 responses, and only 15 were positive - so no go. SNEC Land and Resources Director Lonny Bomberry cited that the "emotional aspect" due to the proximity to the DCE and the "land reclamation" issue was the deciding factor. In other words, having the project immediately across the road from the horrible situation of 2006 that left scars in both communities would, in the minds of some, just throw gasoline on the fire - thus it would be best to just leave things be, at least at this point. In reality, it could be little more than the vocal opposition of the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) that tipped the scales, who asserted "bad faith negotiations" with the developers. Translation here, the HDI was not approached, and they are the self appointed "recognised" authority in the Community. The developers, did not respect the Haudenosaunee Process, and due to a number of deaths in the Longhouse Community, no negotiations could take place. The finger was also pointed at SNEC for not following protocol as HDI sees things. The perception was also that by accepting this deal, Six Nations would be giving up land and treaty "rights".
As to what would happen next, Bomberry believes that this will end the possibility of the development proceeding. I don't think they can proceed reports Bomberry. While the wording of the article is a bit confusing, it seems that the opinion here is that the entire development will just grind to a halt, since Six Nations has not given their approval. It should be recalled that this "deal" was in part to offset the developer's intention to obtain an injunction to allow the work to proceed. Considering the recent rulings by judges of the Superior Court of Ontario, it is highly likely and even probable, in my opinion, that the developer will apply for an injunction and if anyone tries to interfere with his right to develop his land, they will expect to be heavily fined just as those involved in a similar action in Brantford were - and the fines in that matter have not been paid to this point.
As I have noted time and time again, if the evidence ever goes to Court, there is one and only one outcome that will emerge from a test of Six Nations claims of unceeded land beyond the present Reserve boundaries. That decision would be that there is no factual basis upon which these claims rest. Since this evidence has been available to the Courts since 2009, I am wondering when the boom will be lowered. There are going to be a lot of jaws dropping when the evidence is presented, and a ruling is made and all appeals exhausted. My question, posed elsewhere, is whether Six Nations will be forced to make reparations for the extreme damage caused by the 2006 Douglas Creek Estates land "reclamation" - the effects continue to this day, as the acrimony has never gone away.
Stay tuned, this situation is primed for a confrontation.
DeYo.
Brantford and Hamilton are the Car Theft Capitals of Ontario Because ..........
I can recall that when I was a kid, the "local amusement" at what was then called the Caughnawaga Indian Reserve (now Kanawaki) near Montreal was playing "chicken". This involved "obtaining" a vehicle from some local community, and playing a game where the winner was the one who bailed out last. The vehicle, complete with sundry occupants from Caughnawaga, would be driven at a high rate of speed toward the St. Lawrence Seaway shipping canal. Then at the very "last minute" the young males inside would jump out before the car went flying into the canal. The winner was the one who stayed longest, and jumped out just before the car became air bound. Great fun.
So actually theft of vehicles for frivolous purposes (not necessarily to be sold on the black market or chopped for parts) is something of which I have been aware for a long time. Not much different at Six Nations except there is no canal (the old Grand River Navigation Company so called canals were never much more than a ditch anyway).
Statistically it can be shown that today (2013) the Cities of Brantford and Hamilton Ontario have the highest rate of car theft in Ontario, and the biggest contributing factor - some might say Six Nations proximity.
So why do so few people know of "the problem"? Actually everyone at Six Nations knows what goes on. It is hard to ignore when one day there is an empty field, and the next day it is "adorned" with the burnt out hulk of what was just a day ago someones pride and joy. As I have seen things (this needs to be checked via official statistics), the largest number of stolen vehicles to end up on the Rez are full sized GM pickups and SUVs - the vehicles of choice among discerning thieves at Six Nations. For some reason the problem is quietly swept under the carpet, that is to say the newspapers in the surrounding communities give little attention to these crimes, and the insurance companies keep ponying up for "total loss" claims. I don't know of any vehicle that was recovered intact from Six Nations and returned to their owner in Hamilton - if they exist, it would be news to me.
Why does this happen at Six Nations and not at say some other rural area such as Burford Township in Brant County? The answer is surprisingly simple. The Ontario Provincial Police will give chase if they receive a stolen vehicle report (often correctly surmising that the destination is Six Nations) but will stop dead in their tracks at the Six Nations Reserve boundary. They know that they are not wanted there, and that it is dangerous (life threatening) to enter Six Nations Territory. In fact, due to some agreement which I find highly questionable, the OPP is not allowed to go on the Reserve, which last I checked was in the Province of Ontario, but is allowed to police Highway 54 through the northern part of the Reserve - but not along say any sideroad off Highway 54. It is the Six Nations Police, an undermanned force that has law enforcement jurisdiction at Six Nations - and no other agency. If a major felony such as murder or rape is committed at Six Nations, this will be tried in Ontario Superior Court, but the apprehension is by Six Nations Police - who in my experience are frequently too "overburdened" to act except when pressured to do so. Try driving on the Rez around dark and see how aggressively laws pertaining to driving under the influence and speeding will be enforced. To be fair, I think that they are completely overwhelmed by the task when resources are lacking.
Perhaps a recent example will help to paint a vivid and clear picture of the situation viz a viz car thefts, Six Nations, and law enforcement. The following example was known to me, but is described in detail by well known reporter, Christie Blatchford, and her article of 11 december 2013 which can be seen in full here.
The theft took place on 7 November 2013 in Ancaster, a wealthy suburb of Hamilton close to the Highaway 403 and 6 access to Six Nations - actually about a 15 minute drive. So in this instance, a local woman drove to Walmart, leaving her dog in her Cadillac Escalade while she made a few quick purchases. 15 minutes later her car and her dog were gone. As fortune would have it, the luxury vehicle was fitted with a GPS tracking device and Hamilton Police were able to determine its then location - Caledonia, heading towards the Rez. Caledonia is outside the jurisdiction of Hamilton Police so the OPP (who do the policing for Haldimand County which includes Caledonia) were contacted. The OPP soon sighted the vehicle, and the owner thought that this meant that within minutes both her vehicle and dog would be safe and the suspects apprehended. Alas, the owner did not understand what we who live here do - the OPP will not enter the Reserve. The dispatcher told the son of the owner that the OPP would not enter the Rez because "it was too dangerous". They did contact the Six Nations Police - the exact location of the vehicle was known via the satellite tracking device. It gets worse. Even the Six Nations Police initially refused to go to retrieve the dog because the area "was too hostile". As the signal from the GPS device was running low, the owner's son decided he had to enter the Rez to retrieve their dog. Finally the Six Nations Police agreed to meet with him, and armed with assault rifles, they did safely remove the dog. The Escalade was deemed to be a "total loss". As Christie Blatchford said, with complete truth and accuracy, And one more Ontario family has learned the great lesson of Caledonia: You are your own police force. Ms. Blatchford is referring to the new reality hereabouts, where the OPP have been declawed and defanged in order to become a strange entity called "peacekeepers". So those who live south of the Grand River in Haldimand County have learned from bitter experience that you need a contingency plan to protect your own family since dialling 911 may be an exercise in futility. No one has forgotten Sam Gaultieri who was left bruised, bloodied, and permanently brain damaged by thugs from Six Nations. He was assisting his daughter in renovating her home, unfortunately located close to contested land, and so a "no go" zone for the OPP - and he paid the price. What is infuriating to those of us who have studied the original records is that the land in question was ceeded in the 1840s, and somehow, perhaps by a selective reading of the surrenders and council minutes, some have come to believe that the land magically still belongs to Six Nations. It was sold, signed, sealed and delivered over 170 years ago! The facts are now known to all local Ontario Superior Court Judges, so we will see what happens when the truth is revealed to one and all. Mr. Gaultieri and so many others who have suffered have done so needlessly. But I digress.
In one of those odd coincidences, the Blatchford story was highlighted in an article by Lynda Powless in Turtle Island News, December 18, 2013, pp. 2-3, Analysis: Story of a stolen car, a missing dog and national media anti - Six Nations storm. I picked up the newspaper only a couple of hours after writing a first draft of the present posting, focusing on the Blatchford article which I had stumbled across while surfing the Internet. In the Turtle Island News article, Powless expressed indignation that once again, Blatchford was taking a cheap shot at Six Nations without having all the facts at her disposal. While agreeing with most of the facts as reported by Blatchford (or at least the skeleton or framework of the chronology and so on), Powless reports that Blatchford is merely continuing her theme of bashing the OPP and Six Nations at any opportunity - and having a puppy involved in the story allowed her to obtain more sympathy of the family and the situation they found themselves in. Surely Ms. Powless knows that the OPP is frozen out at the boundary line of Six Nations. They cannot and will not cross this line knowingly - there are far too many ramifications. For example there are jurisdictional issues related to the perceived sovereignty of Six Nations as reflected in a story a week earlier in Turtle Island News where a Six Nations man was stopped by the OPP and issued a speeding ticket - and he maintains that the infraction took place on the Reserve - although that is far from clear. So the question for him becomes, should I just pay the $50 and be done with it or get a lawyer and go to Court. Perhaps he will opt for the former as it would be a lot of hassle to go to Court over a $50 matter.
Anyway, I digress, back to the story of the dog and the stolen car which Ms. Powless interprets as an "anti - Six Nations rant" by Ms. Blatchford. It seems that the vehicle owner wanted to make it clear that she was not blaming Six Nations, only the responses of the various police forces to her call, to the extent that she filed a complaint against both. As it turns out, according to Ms. Powless, at the time of the stolen vehicle being driven on to the Reserve, the OPP were at the time busy investigating a truck which had gone off the road into a ditch; and the Six Nations Police were investigating a sexual assault. However there is no disagreement about the location where the tracking system placed the stolen vehicle, it was in a "hostile" area, on property of a person known to Six Nations Police by virtue of his threats against them, and the use of bear spray against one of the officers. Charming. Basically Ms. Powless is attempting to dispel any perceptions, as a result of the Blatchford article, that some areas of the Reserve are lawless and dangerous. Humm, but all of us who live in the area are well aware of the dynamics. There are places no one should go, especially after dark. This is true of most communities, so why it would be any different at Six Nations is puzzling. It all gets a bit more confusing. Apparently the vehicle, once located, was found to be damaged, but was drivable. Then once the owner of the vehicle spoke to her insurance they said they would give her $3,000 to compensate for the write off of a $70,000 vehicle. At that point she apparently became angry with Six Nations police.
Police Chief Lickers, as reported in the Powless article, then takes exception to the allegation of being abandoned when, he asserts, everything possible was done to address the situation in a timely fashion. He believes that Ms. Blatchford's article does everything to sensationalise the story (puppy and all) and that the facts are left dangling in the quest to cast aspersions on the Six Nations Police. Chief Lickers goes on to say that Blatchford failed to seek out information about "the other side of the story", and his interpretation is that, oh wait a minute, then we wouldn't look like the violent, lawless, heathens she portrays us as. This would seem to be a very questionable comment coming from the Chief of Police of any jurisdiction - and frankly I am very surprised that the head of the Six Nations Police would make a statement that, had it been said in say Toronto, would have resulted in immediate consequences. Is there a double standard as to what can be said at Six Nations, and what can be said elsewhere by representatives of the Police? That is a question I will leave to others to answer. Ms. Powless stated that the National Post, where the Blatchford article appeared, fully supported Blatchford, Believe it or not.
Sometimes I really can't believe what goes on, and is accepted and justified at Six Nations - although this is really nothing new. In my opinion it may have something to do with the "victim mentality" that is pervasive in certain quarters.
As I continue to read the latest copy of Turtle Island News, I have difficulty in believing that Ms. Powless comment tenaciously in a second format on the same subject (rage against Christie Blatchford) in her editorial on page 5 under the banner, Time for Six Nations to speak up for itself. Apparently the National Post espouses, very narrow upper middle class Euro-Canadian thinking. As to Blatchford, she just doesn't get it. So instead of fetching the truth, she rolls over and fails to look at facts. Ms. Powless asserts that the real problem is the failure to recognise that at the base of it all is the matter of land - the failure to recognise the true Six Nations claim to land they have been denied. Neeless to say, I completely disagree with Ms. Powless - in fact, there are no legal outstanding land claims, that is a misconception that is widely believed but has absolutely no basis in fact - as can be seen in any of the half dozen or so postings where I discuss the "Holmes Report", presented to the Corporation of the City of Brantford, and used by Justice Harrison Arrell in recent judgements, on the legitimacy of the land claims.
Back to the matter that is the subject of this posting (although it has been majorly side tracked), the problem of car theft. It is well recognised at Six Nations, articles in Turtle Island News give updates. Councillors such as Helen Miller have been particularly proactive in trying to ensure that the problem is addressed. However it is a very serious and very pervasive problem. No one denies this. For an excellent compendium of recent newspaper articles on the subject see here.
So why Six Nations? For one thing thousands of acres of bush land within a short drive of urban centres, ensconced in an area that is "off limits" to the OPP, and is well known for its hard core car thieves who use the Rez as a "retreat". It is to a degree something of a game where if you are in say St. Catharines boosting a truck with mag wheels, you just have to make it through whatever impediments there might be (the OPP has a "no car chase" policy in force in the Golden Horseshoe Region - unless there is a huge public safety risk), and if you make it to say 6th Line and reach the Six Nations border - you are safe, although Six Nations Police will likely catch the perpetrators eventually - but for a time, you got away with it and got the cash from the wheels or transmission or just the thrill - although some deadly crashes have ensued, with death and injury from time to time.
In 2007, the year after the "Caledonia crisis" at the Douglas Creek Estates, 578 vehicles were "recovered" (that does not mean intact). 100 car theft charges were laid by Six Nations Police, three quarters of these charges involved Six Nations Community members. Many of these offences were committed by juveniles where in the Canadian revolving door system, they were soon free to continue with their chosen "career". It is often maintained that the drug oxycontin (a narcotic pain killer) is somehow connected (e.g., the money obtained by these ill gotten gains being spent on this substance). Hence substance abuse is at the root of at least some of the problems. Since Six Nations is the wealthiest Reserve in Canada, it would be hard to play the "poverty card" here. Alas, this whole behavioural pattern has become a way of life for some at Six Nations. All very depressing as there is of course no easy answer. At least their is no discrepancy between the beliefs and the facts in this instance - which is very refreshing. Acknowledging the nature of the problem is the fist step towards at least mitigating if not entirely solving the problem.
DeYo.
So actually theft of vehicles for frivolous purposes (not necessarily to be sold on the black market or chopped for parts) is something of which I have been aware for a long time. Not much different at Six Nations except there is no canal (the old Grand River Navigation Company so called canals were never much more than a ditch anyway).
Statistically it can be shown that today (2013) the Cities of Brantford and Hamilton Ontario have the highest rate of car theft in Ontario, and the biggest contributing factor - some might say Six Nations proximity.
So why do so few people know of "the problem"? Actually everyone at Six Nations knows what goes on. It is hard to ignore when one day there is an empty field, and the next day it is "adorned" with the burnt out hulk of what was just a day ago someones pride and joy. As I have seen things (this needs to be checked via official statistics), the largest number of stolen vehicles to end up on the Rez are full sized GM pickups and SUVs - the vehicles of choice among discerning thieves at Six Nations. For some reason the problem is quietly swept under the carpet, that is to say the newspapers in the surrounding communities give little attention to these crimes, and the insurance companies keep ponying up for "total loss" claims. I don't know of any vehicle that was recovered intact from Six Nations and returned to their owner in Hamilton - if they exist, it would be news to me.
Why does this happen at Six Nations and not at say some other rural area such as Burford Township in Brant County? The answer is surprisingly simple. The Ontario Provincial Police will give chase if they receive a stolen vehicle report (often correctly surmising that the destination is Six Nations) but will stop dead in their tracks at the Six Nations Reserve boundary. They know that they are not wanted there, and that it is dangerous (life threatening) to enter Six Nations Territory. In fact, due to some agreement which I find highly questionable, the OPP is not allowed to go on the Reserve, which last I checked was in the Province of Ontario, but is allowed to police Highway 54 through the northern part of the Reserve - but not along say any sideroad off Highway 54. It is the Six Nations Police, an undermanned force that has law enforcement jurisdiction at Six Nations - and no other agency. If a major felony such as murder or rape is committed at Six Nations, this will be tried in Ontario Superior Court, but the apprehension is by Six Nations Police - who in my experience are frequently too "overburdened" to act except when pressured to do so. Try driving on the Rez around dark and see how aggressively laws pertaining to driving under the influence and speeding will be enforced. To be fair, I think that they are completely overwhelmed by the task when resources are lacking.
Perhaps a recent example will help to paint a vivid and clear picture of the situation viz a viz car thefts, Six Nations, and law enforcement. The following example was known to me, but is described in detail by well known reporter, Christie Blatchford, and her article of 11 december 2013 which can be seen in full here.
The theft took place on 7 November 2013 in Ancaster, a wealthy suburb of Hamilton close to the Highaway 403 and 6 access to Six Nations - actually about a 15 minute drive. So in this instance, a local woman drove to Walmart, leaving her dog in her Cadillac Escalade while she made a few quick purchases. 15 minutes later her car and her dog were gone. As fortune would have it, the luxury vehicle was fitted with a GPS tracking device and Hamilton Police were able to determine its then location - Caledonia, heading towards the Rez. Caledonia is outside the jurisdiction of Hamilton Police so the OPP (who do the policing for Haldimand County which includes Caledonia) were contacted. The OPP soon sighted the vehicle, and the owner thought that this meant that within minutes both her vehicle and dog would be safe and the suspects apprehended. Alas, the owner did not understand what we who live here do - the OPP will not enter the Reserve. The dispatcher told the son of the owner that the OPP would not enter the Rez because "it was too dangerous". They did contact the Six Nations Police - the exact location of the vehicle was known via the satellite tracking device. It gets worse. Even the Six Nations Police initially refused to go to retrieve the dog because the area "was too hostile". As the signal from the GPS device was running low, the owner's son decided he had to enter the Rez to retrieve their dog. Finally the Six Nations Police agreed to meet with him, and armed with assault rifles, they did safely remove the dog. The Escalade was deemed to be a "total loss". As Christie Blatchford said, with complete truth and accuracy, And one more Ontario family has learned the great lesson of Caledonia: You are your own police force. Ms. Blatchford is referring to the new reality hereabouts, where the OPP have been declawed and defanged in order to become a strange entity called "peacekeepers". So those who live south of the Grand River in Haldimand County have learned from bitter experience that you need a contingency plan to protect your own family since dialling 911 may be an exercise in futility. No one has forgotten Sam Gaultieri who was left bruised, bloodied, and permanently brain damaged by thugs from Six Nations. He was assisting his daughter in renovating her home, unfortunately located close to contested land, and so a "no go" zone for the OPP - and he paid the price. What is infuriating to those of us who have studied the original records is that the land in question was ceeded in the 1840s, and somehow, perhaps by a selective reading of the surrenders and council minutes, some have come to believe that the land magically still belongs to Six Nations. It was sold, signed, sealed and delivered over 170 years ago! The facts are now known to all local Ontario Superior Court Judges, so we will see what happens when the truth is revealed to one and all. Mr. Gaultieri and so many others who have suffered have done so needlessly. But I digress.
In one of those odd coincidences, the Blatchford story was highlighted in an article by Lynda Powless in Turtle Island News, December 18, 2013, pp. 2-3, Analysis: Story of a stolen car, a missing dog and national media anti - Six Nations storm. I picked up the newspaper only a couple of hours after writing a first draft of the present posting, focusing on the Blatchford article which I had stumbled across while surfing the Internet. In the Turtle Island News article, Powless expressed indignation that once again, Blatchford was taking a cheap shot at Six Nations without having all the facts at her disposal. While agreeing with most of the facts as reported by Blatchford (or at least the skeleton or framework of the chronology and so on), Powless reports that Blatchford is merely continuing her theme of bashing the OPP and Six Nations at any opportunity - and having a puppy involved in the story allowed her to obtain more sympathy of the family and the situation they found themselves in. Surely Ms. Powless knows that the OPP is frozen out at the boundary line of Six Nations. They cannot and will not cross this line knowingly - there are far too many ramifications. For example there are jurisdictional issues related to the perceived sovereignty of Six Nations as reflected in a story a week earlier in Turtle Island News where a Six Nations man was stopped by the OPP and issued a speeding ticket - and he maintains that the infraction took place on the Reserve - although that is far from clear. So the question for him becomes, should I just pay the $50 and be done with it or get a lawyer and go to Court. Perhaps he will opt for the former as it would be a lot of hassle to go to Court over a $50 matter.
Anyway, I digress, back to the story of the dog and the stolen car which Ms. Powless interprets as an "anti - Six Nations rant" by Ms. Blatchford. It seems that the vehicle owner wanted to make it clear that she was not blaming Six Nations, only the responses of the various police forces to her call, to the extent that she filed a complaint against both. As it turns out, according to Ms. Powless, at the time of the stolen vehicle being driven on to the Reserve, the OPP were at the time busy investigating a truck which had gone off the road into a ditch; and the Six Nations Police were investigating a sexual assault. However there is no disagreement about the location where the tracking system placed the stolen vehicle, it was in a "hostile" area, on property of a person known to Six Nations Police by virtue of his threats against them, and the use of bear spray against one of the officers. Charming. Basically Ms. Powless is attempting to dispel any perceptions, as a result of the Blatchford article, that some areas of the Reserve are lawless and dangerous. Humm, but all of us who live in the area are well aware of the dynamics. There are places no one should go, especially after dark. This is true of most communities, so why it would be any different at Six Nations is puzzling. It all gets a bit more confusing. Apparently the vehicle, once located, was found to be damaged, but was drivable. Then once the owner of the vehicle spoke to her insurance they said they would give her $3,000 to compensate for the write off of a $70,000 vehicle. At that point she apparently became angry with Six Nations police.
Police Chief Lickers, as reported in the Powless article, then takes exception to the allegation of being abandoned when, he asserts, everything possible was done to address the situation in a timely fashion. He believes that Ms. Blatchford's article does everything to sensationalise the story (puppy and all) and that the facts are left dangling in the quest to cast aspersions on the Six Nations Police. Chief Lickers goes on to say that Blatchford failed to seek out information about "the other side of the story", and his interpretation is that, oh wait a minute, then we wouldn't look like the violent, lawless, heathens she portrays us as. This would seem to be a very questionable comment coming from the Chief of Police of any jurisdiction - and frankly I am very surprised that the head of the Six Nations Police would make a statement that, had it been said in say Toronto, would have resulted in immediate consequences. Is there a double standard as to what can be said at Six Nations, and what can be said elsewhere by representatives of the Police? That is a question I will leave to others to answer. Ms. Powless stated that the National Post, where the Blatchford article appeared, fully supported Blatchford, Believe it or not.
Sometimes I really can't believe what goes on, and is accepted and justified at Six Nations - although this is really nothing new. In my opinion it may have something to do with the "victim mentality" that is pervasive in certain quarters.
As I continue to read the latest copy of Turtle Island News, I have difficulty in believing that Ms. Powless comment tenaciously in a second format on the same subject (rage against Christie Blatchford) in her editorial on page 5 under the banner, Time for Six Nations to speak up for itself. Apparently the National Post espouses, very narrow upper middle class Euro-Canadian thinking. As to Blatchford, she just doesn't get it. So instead of fetching the truth, she rolls over and fails to look at facts. Ms. Powless asserts that the real problem is the failure to recognise that at the base of it all is the matter of land - the failure to recognise the true Six Nations claim to land they have been denied. Neeless to say, I completely disagree with Ms. Powless - in fact, there are no legal outstanding land claims, that is a misconception that is widely believed but has absolutely no basis in fact - as can be seen in any of the half dozen or so postings where I discuss the "Holmes Report", presented to the Corporation of the City of Brantford, and used by Justice Harrison Arrell in recent judgements, on the legitimacy of the land claims.
Back to the matter that is the subject of this posting (although it has been majorly side tracked), the problem of car theft. It is well recognised at Six Nations, articles in Turtle Island News give updates. Councillors such as Helen Miller have been particularly proactive in trying to ensure that the problem is addressed. However it is a very serious and very pervasive problem. No one denies this. For an excellent compendium of recent newspaper articles on the subject see here.
So why Six Nations? For one thing thousands of acres of bush land within a short drive of urban centres, ensconced in an area that is "off limits" to the OPP, and is well known for its hard core car thieves who use the Rez as a "retreat". It is to a degree something of a game where if you are in say St. Catharines boosting a truck with mag wheels, you just have to make it through whatever impediments there might be (the OPP has a "no car chase" policy in force in the Golden Horseshoe Region - unless there is a huge public safety risk), and if you make it to say 6th Line and reach the Six Nations border - you are safe, although Six Nations Police will likely catch the perpetrators eventually - but for a time, you got away with it and got the cash from the wheels or transmission or just the thrill - although some deadly crashes have ensued, with death and injury from time to time.
In 2007, the year after the "Caledonia crisis" at the Douglas Creek Estates, 578 vehicles were "recovered" (that does not mean intact). 100 car theft charges were laid by Six Nations Police, three quarters of these charges involved Six Nations Community members. Many of these offences were committed by juveniles where in the Canadian revolving door system, they were soon free to continue with their chosen "career". It is often maintained that the drug oxycontin (a narcotic pain killer) is somehow connected (e.g., the money obtained by these ill gotten gains being spent on this substance). Hence substance abuse is at the root of at least some of the problems. Since Six Nations is the wealthiest Reserve in Canada, it would be hard to play the "poverty card" here. Alas, this whole behavioural pattern has become a way of life for some at Six Nations. All very depressing as there is of course no easy answer. At least their is no discrepancy between the beliefs and the facts in this instance - which is very refreshing. Acknowledging the nature of the problem is the fist step towards at least mitigating if not entirely solving the problem.
DeYo.
Saturday 14 December 2013
The Recurring Themes of Sovereignty and Ownership of the Haldimand Tract: The Relationship Between Six Nations, the British Crown, and Canada
Among the constants that one hears at Six Nations is that "we are a sovereign people". This is a firmly held belief among many, so one might enquire as to what facts exist to prove that in effect the Six Nations Reserve is a territory within a territory, and that the relationship between Six Nations and Canada is one reflecting independent nation states. Since the matter is so pervasive, and is used to justify many questionable acts at Six Nations, it needs to be scrutinised to assess the validity of the claim. An issue complicating the matter is that the question of whether the Six Nations or the Crown "own" the Haldimand Tract, and this is inexorably intertwined with the issue of land claims. At present there are 29 claims that have been registered with the Federal Government by Six Nations Lands and Resources. The focus of the present posting, however, is on the question of sovereignty.
In an earlier blog posting I gave a preliminary introduction to the subject, with the focus on the symbolic badge of the claimed sovereignty, the Two Row Wampum (Guswhenta), as seen here.
The concept of sovereignty is complex, and a general understanding can be obtained here. In a nutshell, Six Nations claims independent authority of lands that they consider to be their territory. In recent times the most adamant and radical element has asserted that not only does this "authority" extend over the present day Reserve, but also the Haldimand Tract (via the Haldimand Proclamation of 1784), and some even claim a hegemony over all of Southwestern Ontario (via the Nanfan Treaty of 1701). Since the Nanfan Treaty is being used by Six Nations to claim a blanket right to be consulted (and paid) for any development in Southwestern Ontario, it will be instructive to examine the wording of this document from the viewpoint of sovereignty. Here the Five Nations representatives, doe for us our heires and successors absolutely surrender, deliver up and for ever quit claime unto our great Lord and Master the King of England. The King is also referred to as, our souveraigne Lord the King William the third. Further to the general issue of sovereignty, the Five Nations recorded that, wee having subjected ourselves and lands on this side of Cadarachqui lake [Lake Ontario] wholy to the Crown of England. I am not sure how much clearer a statement of the recognition of the sovereignty of the Crown could possibly be.
In previous blog postings I have attempted to sift through these claims to arrive at something approximating the truth, and in the process have to my satisfaction succeeded in demolishing both of these claims. What will be important data - wise will be to see what happened historically when Six Nations has taken their claims of soverenity to Ottawa, London or even Geneva to obtain confirmation of their perspective on this contentious issue. Bear in mind that by accepting the assertion of sovereignty, it would mean that Six Nations and Canada are on an equal footing, with neither having "dominance" over the other. However odd this may sound to outsiders, this would in fact mean that people in a territory of slightly over 20,000 people would have an equivalent but independent status to those in the surrounding territory of about 32,000,000 people. Well, I guess there is tiny Litchenstein or Monaco in Europe, so perhaps it is not an altogether outlandish proposition on this basis alone.
In the minds of many Six Nations, their relationship is with the historical ally, the British Crown. Thus when they make no headway with Canada, petitions will be sent to the entity with whom the Six Nations have had a long and formal relationship. It does make some sense in that it was in effect the British Crown was the other party involved in key agreements such as the Two Row Wampum, Covenant Chain, Proclamation of 1763 and the territorial agreement of 1768 - all the way up to the series of surrenders in the 1840s. Canada became an independent country with a Constitutional Monarchy at Confederation in 1867, and the powers that once involved the British Crown directly were transferred to Canada - who now have jurisdiction. Thus in a legal sense, it was the Government of Canada that Six Nations had to deal with after 1867, although this fact has not stopped individuals or groups from approaching the British Crown to settle their disagreements with Canada. The result has always been the same. Some historical perspective is needed here.
Although Britain knew that they needed to tred lightly after their conquest of New Amsterdam from the Dutch in 1664, they never held any illusions about their own sovereignty by right of conquest, it extended as far as the French settlements along the St. Lawrence River and west to the French settlements of the Ohio Valley. At various times official maps of their dominions would be published, including their claims at the time of the American Revolution. Maps from 1774, immediately prior to the Revolution, show that the British concept of dominion included all the lands of the Six Nations. In none of my extensive readings of the history of the years leading up to the American Revolution have I seen a document which unequivocally acknowledges Six Nations sovereignty. Nothing. What one will find are documents where the British and Six Nations agree to be allies against the French or the Americans, but the British Crown is always referred to as, "our Great Father the King" and such expressions. High Government officials, even the Governor or New York or Pennsylvania, as well as the representatives of the Crown such as Sir William Johnson were referred to as "Brother", and those one step down the ladder such as the Delaware, were "Nephews". Everything appears to reflect the British perspective that they have an unchallenged right (via conquest or treaty) to the lands wherein the Six Nations resided. There can be little wiggle room here, the Six Nations recognized the King of Great Britain as their sovereign - but every so often the matter must be revisted, perhaps because a new generation has forgotten the Court rulings that have been filed in answer to this question!
The matter of sovereignty is found embedded in various publications such as Elizabeth Tooker, The League of the Iroquois: Its History, Politics, and Ritual, in William C. Sturtevant (Ed.), Handbook of the Indians of North America, Vol. 15, Northeast, Washington D.C., Smithsonian Institute, 1978.
The British wanted to ensure that all understood what their claims were, and as early as 1684, at a council between the Five Nations (the Tuscarora had not yet become the Sixth Nation) held at Albany they demanded that the Five Nations cease their attacks on Virginia and Maryland, and here the British, claimed the Iroquois as her subjects. Tooker did express the opinion that, however, it is doubtful that the Iroquois fully understood what the British meant by this assertion of sovereignty. In more formal treaties, such as the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, the Iroquois were acknowledged to be British subjects (p. 432).
The Haldimand Proclamation was issued in 1784, providing Crown purchased land on which the Six Nations were given a tract of land on which they could settle. Never is the words granted, deed in fee simple, or any such expression appear in this document under Haldimand's own personal seal. It has been described in numersous Court cases (see below) as little more than a "location ticket", or a document that gives permission to occupy lands.
In Weaver's article in the same publication as noted above (Sturtevant), and discussed at length in the previous blog posting, we spring ahead in time and place to 1793 and the Haldimand Tract. Governor Simcoe maintained that, The Crown held that the land was not alienable by the Indians and that the Proclamation did not recognise political sovereignty of the League. In 1793, determined to reinforce the Crown's trusteeship interpretation of the title, John Graves Simcoe, lieutenant governor of Upper Canada, drafted the Simcoe Patent which stipulated that all land transactions of the Six Nations had to be approved by the Crown (p. 525). The Simcoe Patent did include the great seal.
Thus the British government authorities and the British Crown had from the earliest days of their take over from the Dutch, maintained that the Six Nations were subjects of the Crown. This relationship, however, did not interfere with the concept of the Six Nations being allies of the British in times of War - meaning that they would side with and support the British cause against the French or the American Rebels. However after the War of 1812, even this concept of allies had withered away. Being allied in a common cause does not imply sovereignty, although many today at Six Nations appear to see the two in a conflated way.
Over the years at Six Nations, the Hereditary Council attempted to assert their rights as a sovereign people. For example, in 1830 Council denied that the Indian Act applied to them, since they considered themselves to be a sovereign nation, however, the government has consistently maintained that the act applied with no exceptions to the Six Nations of the Grand River Iroquois (Weaver, 1978, p. 526).
A ruling in 1835 speaks directly to the issue. Here in Jackson v. Wilkes, Upper Canada King's Bench, Judges Robinson, Sherwood and Macaulay provided the following opinion in relation to the Haldimand proclamation: We have ascertained that there was a great seal in use in the Province of Quebec in 1784, when the instrument of General Haldimand bears date; that grants of land, of which few were made by the British Governement before the year 1795, were made by letters patent under the great seal, and that had been uniformly held in the courts of Lower Canada that grants of waste lands of the Crown would not be made in any other manner. The ruling goes on to say that since the great seal was not used in the Haldimand document of 1784, those to whom he granted the land cannot presume to possess any interest byond that of a mere licence of occupation [151/268] - see here. The matter was supposed to have been settled for once and for all in 1839 where, The J.B. Macaulay Report, 1839 (Vols. 718-719) contains the seminal judgement denying political sovereignty to the Six Nations (p. 536).
Despite the clearest possible statements at various points in time by both the British Crown and the Canadian Government, the Six Nations Hereditary Council continued to push the issue of sovereignty, culminating in what to Canada was a slap in the face when in 1923, the Cayuga Chief Levi General Deskahe travelled to London to present their case to the British Crown, and to Geneva to assert sovereignty before the League of Nations. Needless to say, he did not make many friends among either the Canadian government or the "progressive" elements on the Reserve who wanted the Hereditary Council removed and replaced by an elected system where one of the criteria for membership in council was education.
The sovereignty issues continued to surface, often embedded in the protracted continuing acrimonious disputes between the elected and hereditary councils and their supporters. As part of the case involving Logan v. Styres et al. in 1959, addressed by what was then known as the High Court of Ontario (Judge King), the judge ruled on the question of sovereignty as follows:
More recently, in 1974 the Supreme Court of Canada rules in the Isaac et al. v. Davey et al. case as to "ownership" of the Haldimand Tract. In the ruling the Judge stated that, I have concluded that the tract in question is vested in the Crown. The original report can be seen here. In this said document, where members of the Elected Council took those of the Hereditary Court to Court for interfering with their right to govern Six Nations, The allegation of national sovereignty was made in this very action but abandoned at trial [12].
In the Amicus Report of 2009, submitted to Justice Harrison Arrell of the Superior Court of Ontario, relating to an injunction being sought by the Corporation of the City of Brantford, they spoke to the matter of sovereignty - see here. Their opinion was recorded as, “Canadian courts have held that the Haldimand Proclamation and the Simcoe Patent essentially conferred upon the Six Nations personal and usufructuary rights and not a conveyance of land in the English sense”. Nothing was found that would support the Six Nations case, other than their beliefs.
Fast forward to 2013 - nothing has changed - despite the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada. It does not matter a whit how many judgements have failed to in any way offer encouragement to the belief that the Six Nations are a sovereign people, a large cadre of individuals continue to press forward with the issue. This is seen across a whole spectrum of issues. For example at one time the RCMP was the official police force at Six Nations, to later be replaced by the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP). In recent years the OPP presence has proved to be a highly divisive topic, and at times I have seen signs in the windows of homes at Six Nations (and Tyendinaga) to the effect that the OPP is unwelcome - although stronger words were used. So today there is a Six Nations police force, trained by the OPP, and who cooperate with the OPP, but the OPP dare not set foot on Six Nations as their jurisdiction is not recognised, and officers take their lives in their hands by being there - especially during times where some confrontational issue is front and centre (e.g., during the Caledonia crisis).
Despite the facts, the sovereignty issue is not going to go away. It is part of the ingrained identity of Six Nations. Hence I don't know what the answer is here. To my understanding, given the facts, there is no reason why the people of Six Nations should not be considered as Canadian, with all the rights and responsibilities this entails - plus of course the entrenched "rights" mandated by the Indian Act - perks that are not available to those who are not registered members of a First Nations community. The matter is aggravated by a group of White youth whose adolescent ardour has no time for an analysis of the facts, only the belief that the Six Nations are a downtrodden people, under the Colonial thumb of Canada, and need help in fighting this colonialism. Although misguided and delusioned, these groups make their presence felt at those times when there is some confrontation between Six Nations and the local communities, or with the Federal Government over some matter. The groups involved in this support network are anti - establishment, and "solidarity" with the Six Nations is merely a pretext to espouse their Marxist inspired philosophy. See here for the website of Six Nations Solidarity group, and here for related groups. As many Six Nations now know, these are dangerous groups with a focused agenda, and the support of these White groups can ultimately undermine their cause.
It (should) go without saying that one cannot be a sovereign people if the land base is in fact vested in the Crown of England (now the Federal Government of Canada). However, around here a well established fact will never stand in the way of a firmly fixed belief.
So while the concept of "sovereignty" feeds the ego of Six Nations, but it does not stand on any legal footing and is doomed to be nothing more than a festering sore. I can foresee more delegations to London, and other futile efforts to obtain what was never theirs. Therein lies the problem, the belief does not equate with the facts, however this is not in any way a deterrant to continuing to propagate false "facts" and attempting to obtain support anywhere and everywhere for this distorted worldview.
Updated: 28, 29 December 2013.
DeYo.
In an earlier blog posting I gave a preliminary introduction to the subject, with the focus on the symbolic badge of the claimed sovereignty, the Two Row Wampum (Guswhenta), as seen here.
The concept of sovereignty is complex, and a general understanding can be obtained here. In a nutshell, Six Nations claims independent authority of lands that they consider to be their territory. In recent times the most adamant and radical element has asserted that not only does this "authority" extend over the present day Reserve, but also the Haldimand Tract (via the Haldimand Proclamation of 1784), and some even claim a hegemony over all of Southwestern Ontario (via the Nanfan Treaty of 1701). Since the Nanfan Treaty is being used by Six Nations to claim a blanket right to be consulted (and paid) for any development in Southwestern Ontario, it will be instructive to examine the wording of this document from the viewpoint of sovereignty. Here the Five Nations representatives, doe for us our heires and successors absolutely surrender, deliver up and for ever quit claime unto our great Lord and Master the King of England. The King is also referred to as, our souveraigne Lord the King William the third. Further to the general issue of sovereignty, the Five Nations recorded that, wee having subjected ourselves and lands on this side of Cadarachqui lake [Lake Ontario] wholy to the Crown of England. I am not sure how much clearer a statement of the recognition of the sovereignty of the Crown could possibly be.
In previous blog postings I have attempted to sift through these claims to arrive at something approximating the truth, and in the process have to my satisfaction succeeded in demolishing both of these claims. What will be important data - wise will be to see what happened historically when Six Nations has taken their claims of soverenity to Ottawa, London or even Geneva to obtain confirmation of their perspective on this contentious issue. Bear in mind that by accepting the assertion of sovereignty, it would mean that Six Nations and Canada are on an equal footing, with neither having "dominance" over the other. However odd this may sound to outsiders, this would in fact mean that people in a territory of slightly over 20,000 people would have an equivalent but independent status to those in the surrounding territory of about 32,000,000 people. Well, I guess there is tiny Litchenstein or Monaco in Europe, so perhaps it is not an altogether outlandish proposition on this basis alone.
In the minds of many Six Nations, their relationship is with the historical ally, the British Crown. Thus when they make no headway with Canada, petitions will be sent to the entity with whom the Six Nations have had a long and formal relationship. It does make some sense in that it was in effect the British Crown was the other party involved in key agreements such as the Two Row Wampum, Covenant Chain, Proclamation of 1763 and the territorial agreement of 1768 - all the way up to the series of surrenders in the 1840s. Canada became an independent country with a Constitutional Monarchy at Confederation in 1867, and the powers that once involved the British Crown directly were transferred to Canada - who now have jurisdiction. Thus in a legal sense, it was the Government of Canada that Six Nations had to deal with after 1867, although this fact has not stopped individuals or groups from approaching the British Crown to settle their disagreements with Canada. The result has always been the same. Some historical perspective is needed here.
Although Britain knew that they needed to tred lightly after their conquest of New Amsterdam from the Dutch in 1664, they never held any illusions about their own sovereignty by right of conquest, it extended as far as the French settlements along the St. Lawrence River and west to the French settlements of the Ohio Valley. At various times official maps of their dominions would be published, including their claims at the time of the American Revolution. Maps from 1774, immediately prior to the Revolution, show that the British concept of dominion included all the lands of the Six Nations. In none of my extensive readings of the history of the years leading up to the American Revolution have I seen a document which unequivocally acknowledges Six Nations sovereignty. Nothing. What one will find are documents where the British and Six Nations agree to be allies against the French or the Americans, but the British Crown is always referred to as, "our Great Father the King" and such expressions. High Government officials, even the Governor or New York or Pennsylvania, as well as the representatives of the Crown such as Sir William Johnson were referred to as "Brother", and those one step down the ladder such as the Delaware, were "Nephews". Everything appears to reflect the British perspective that they have an unchallenged right (via conquest or treaty) to the lands wherein the Six Nations resided. There can be little wiggle room here, the Six Nations recognized the King of Great Britain as their sovereign - but every so often the matter must be revisted, perhaps because a new generation has forgotten the Court rulings that have been filed in answer to this question!
The matter of sovereignty is found embedded in various publications such as Elizabeth Tooker, The League of the Iroquois: Its History, Politics, and Ritual, in William C. Sturtevant (Ed.), Handbook of the Indians of North America, Vol. 15, Northeast, Washington D.C., Smithsonian Institute, 1978.
The British wanted to ensure that all understood what their claims were, and as early as 1684, at a council between the Five Nations (the Tuscarora had not yet become the Sixth Nation) held at Albany they demanded that the Five Nations cease their attacks on Virginia and Maryland, and here the British, claimed the Iroquois as her subjects. Tooker did express the opinion that, however, it is doubtful that the Iroquois fully understood what the British meant by this assertion of sovereignty. In more formal treaties, such as the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, the Iroquois were acknowledged to be British subjects (p. 432).
The Haldimand Proclamation was issued in 1784, providing Crown purchased land on which the Six Nations were given a tract of land on which they could settle. Never is the words granted, deed in fee simple, or any such expression appear in this document under Haldimand's own personal seal. It has been described in numersous Court cases (see below) as little more than a "location ticket", or a document that gives permission to occupy lands.
In Weaver's article in the same publication as noted above (Sturtevant), and discussed at length in the previous blog posting, we spring ahead in time and place to 1793 and the Haldimand Tract. Governor Simcoe maintained that, The Crown held that the land was not alienable by the Indians and that the Proclamation did not recognise political sovereignty of the League. In 1793, determined to reinforce the Crown's trusteeship interpretation of the title, John Graves Simcoe, lieutenant governor of Upper Canada, drafted the Simcoe Patent which stipulated that all land transactions of the Six Nations had to be approved by the Crown (p. 525). The Simcoe Patent did include the great seal.
Thus the British government authorities and the British Crown had from the earliest days of their take over from the Dutch, maintained that the Six Nations were subjects of the Crown. This relationship, however, did not interfere with the concept of the Six Nations being allies of the British in times of War - meaning that they would side with and support the British cause against the French or the American Rebels. However after the War of 1812, even this concept of allies had withered away. Being allied in a common cause does not imply sovereignty, although many today at Six Nations appear to see the two in a conflated way.
Over the years at Six Nations, the Hereditary Council attempted to assert their rights as a sovereign people. For example, in 1830 Council denied that the Indian Act applied to them, since they considered themselves to be a sovereign nation, however, the government has consistently maintained that the act applied with no exceptions to the Six Nations of the Grand River Iroquois (Weaver, 1978, p. 526).
A ruling in 1835 speaks directly to the issue. Here in Jackson v. Wilkes, Upper Canada King's Bench, Judges Robinson, Sherwood and Macaulay provided the following opinion in relation to the Haldimand proclamation: We have ascertained that there was a great seal in use in the Province of Quebec in 1784, when the instrument of General Haldimand bears date; that grants of land, of which few were made by the British Governement before the year 1795, were made by letters patent under the great seal, and that had been uniformly held in the courts of Lower Canada that grants of waste lands of the Crown would not be made in any other manner. The ruling goes on to say that since the great seal was not used in the Haldimand document of 1784, those to whom he granted the land cannot presume to possess any interest byond that of a mere licence of occupation [151/268] - see here. The matter was supposed to have been settled for once and for all in 1839 where, The J.B. Macaulay Report, 1839 (Vols. 718-719) contains the seminal judgement denying political sovereignty to the Six Nations (p. 536).
The sovereignty issues continued to surface, often embedded in the protracted continuing acrimonious disputes between the elected and hereditary councils and their supporters. As part of the case involving Logan v. Styres et al. in 1959, addressed by what was then known as the High Court of Ontario (Judge King), the judge ruled on the question of sovereignty as follows:
The purpose of the Simcoe Deed would seem to be to confirm the grant already made by the
Haldimand Deed. In each of these deeds it is made clear that those of the Six Nations Indians
settling on the lands therein described do so under the protection of the Crown. In my opinion,
those of the Six Nations Indians so settling on such lands, together with their posterity, by
accepting the protection of the Crown then owed allegiance to the Crown and thus became
subjects of the Crown. Thus, the said Six Nations Indians from having been the faithful allies of the
Crown became, instead, loyal subjects of the Crown [4]. See here for the complete document.More recently, in 1974 the Supreme Court of Canada rules in the Isaac et al. v. Davey et al. case as to "ownership" of the Haldimand Tract. In the ruling the Judge stated that, I have concluded that the tract in question is vested in the Crown. The original report can be seen here. In this said document, where members of the Elected Council took those of the Hereditary Court to Court for interfering with their right to govern Six Nations, The allegation of national sovereignty was made in this very action but abandoned at trial [12].
In the Amicus Report of 2009, submitted to Justice Harrison Arrell of the Superior Court of Ontario, relating to an injunction being sought by the Corporation of the City of Brantford, they spoke to the matter of sovereignty - see here. Their opinion was recorded as, “Canadian courts have held that the Haldimand Proclamation and the Simcoe Patent essentially conferred upon the Six Nations personal and usufructuary rights and not a conveyance of land in the English sense”. Nothing was found that would support the Six Nations case, other than their beliefs.
Fast forward to 2013 - nothing has changed - despite the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada. It does not matter a whit how many judgements have failed to in any way offer encouragement to the belief that the Six Nations are a sovereign people, a large cadre of individuals continue to press forward with the issue. This is seen across a whole spectrum of issues. For example at one time the RCMP was the official police force at Six Nations, to later be replaced by the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP). In recent years the OPP presence has proved to be a highly divisive topic, and at times I have seen signs in the windows of homes at Six Nations (and Tyendinaga) to the effect that the OPP is unwelcome - although stronger words were used. So today there is a Six Nations police force, trained by the OPP, and who cooperate with the OPP, but the OPP dare not set foot on Six Nations as their jurisdiction is not recognised, and officers take their lives in their hands by being there - especially during times where some confrontational issue is front and centre (e.g., during the Caledonia crisis).
Despite the facts, the sovereignty issue is not going to go away. It is part of the ingrained identity of Six Nations. Hence I don't know what the answer is here. To my understanding, given the facts, there is no reason why the people of Six Nations should not be considered as Canadian, with all the rights and responsibilities this entails - plus of course the entrenched "rights" mandated by the Indian Act - perks that are not available to those who are not registered members of a First Nations community. The matter is aggravated by a group of White youth whose adolescent ardour has no time for an analysis of the facts, only the belief that the Six Nations are a downtrodden people, under the Colonial thumb of Canada, and need help in fighting this colonialism. Although misguided and delusioned, these groups make their presence felt at those times when there is some confrontation between Six Nations and the local communities, or with the Federal Government over some matter. The groups involved in this support network are anti - establishment, and "solidarity" with the Six Nations is merely a pretext to espouse their Marxist inspired philosophy. See here for the website of Six Nations Solidarity group, and here for related groups. As many Six Nations now know, these are dangerous groups with a focused agenda, and the support of these White groups can ultimately undermine their cause.
It (should) go without saying that one cannot be a sovereign people if the land base is in fact vested in the Crown of England (now the Federal Government of Canada). However, around here a well established fact will never stand in the way of a firmly fixed belief.
So while the concept of "sovereignty" feeds the ego of Six Nations, but it does not stand on any legal footing and is doomed to be nothing more than a festering sore. I can foresee more delegations to London, and other futile efforts to obtain what was never theirs. Therein lies the problem, the belief does not equate with the facts, however this is not in any way a deterrant to continuing to propagate false "facts" and attempting to obtain support anywhere and everywhere for this distorted worldview.
Updated: 28, 29 December 2013.
DeYo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)